After years of studying baccarat I've come to the conclusion that the only way to win at this game is by properly assessing the number and distribution of BP shifts per each shoe.
Each shoe features an average probability to get this or that, first we should restrict the number of such this and that.
We cannot care less about long streaks, they are the best way amateurs try to get a profit by.
Long streaks or homogeneous patterns or predominance factors are just post hoc findings.
They will come at the right time or not.
As players we are compelled to restrict the "right time" within "now" or "very shortly" terms. A thing that the random world is laughing at.
Baccarat shifts move more from P to B than from B to P but itlr (and intermediate terms too) the number of BP shifts is equal, actually is slightly oriented to get more shifts than a perfect 50/50 proposition dictates.
Such conclusion came from testing millions of shoes.
We know that in a 50/50 perfect proposition itlr the number of singles and doubles will be very close to 75%.
Of course B singles and B doubles itlr will get a lesser amount than 75% compensated by the P outcomes.
Really?
No way.
A large sample study about sd values calculated on 3+ or 4+ streaks formed on both sides tell us that the number of shoes featuring a low than average number of such streaks will outbalance the number of shoes featuring a higher than average number of those streaks.
Of course along any shoe the probability to get an higher than average number of such streaks will come out more often than not whether those streaks had come out by a higher pace than expected.
Why?
Because actual card distribution which produced such "unexpected" long streaks has consumed space to get the more likely shifthing mood.
And the same is true regarding more likely situations.
The effect is working on every shoe dealt in the universe but it's more likely to happen when we have reasons to think that the distribution won't be perfectly random.
And in the actual bac world we're not betting against pc distributions.
as.
Each shoe features an average probability to get this or that, first we should restrict the number of such this and that.
We cannot care less about long streaks, they are the best way amateurs try to get a profit by.
Long streaks or homogeneous patterns or predominance factors are just post hoc findings.
They will come at the right time or not.
As players we are compelled to restrict the "right time" within "now" or "very shortly" terms. A thing that the random world is laughing at.
Baccarat shifts move more from P to B than from B to P but itlr (and intermediate terms too) the number of BP shifts is equal, actually is slightly oriented to get more shifts than a perfect 50/50 proposition dictates.
Such conclusion came from testing millions of shoes.
We know that in a 50/50 perfect proposition itlr the number of singles and doubles will be very close to 75%.
Of course B singles and B doubles itlr will get a lesser amount than 75% compensated by the P outcomes.
Really?
No way.
A large sample study about sd values calculated on 3+ or 4+ streaks formed on both sides tell us that the number of shoes featuring a low than average number of such streaks will outbalance the number of shoes featuring a higher than average number of those streaks.
Of course along any shoe the probability to get an higher than average number of such streaks will come out more often than not whether those streaks had come out by a higher pace than expected.
Why?
Because actual card distribution which produced such "unexpected" long streaks has consumed space to get the more likely shifthing mood.
And the same is true regarding more likely situations.
The effect is working on every shoe dealt in the universe but it's more likely to happen when we have reasons to think that the distribution won't be perfectly random.
And in the actual bac world we're not betting against pc distributions.
as.